Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. A man's musical sensitivity has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being a good musician. Period.

OK. And can you explain to us then what ALL the potential elements are that might make a man a good musician which, according to you determine a man's musical sensitivity?

Or, are some or all of those off limits for open discussion too because they don't match one's personal beliefs?

Reminds me somehow of the argument from the creationists that there has to be a god because of their belief in universal agency that everything has to proceed from or be created by something else....and then refuse to discuss who created god...and in turn who created her...

The 100m final at the olympics shows otherwise. Sure, it takes hard work and dedication to become a world class sprinter, but if you happen to have been born male and of African descent then you're at an advantage.

The 100m final at the olympics shows otherwise. Sure, it takes hard work and dedication to become a world class sprinter, but if you happen to have been born male and of African descent then you're at an advantage.

Okay, I admit that's true. Black people are generally the best physically built. The ratio of well-built blacks to equally well-built whites (or any other race) is pretty darn high I'd say.

But does anyone honestly believe that the same ratio applies for gays vs. straights when it comes to raw musical talent? Come on...

Males run faster, on average and, recordedly (come on, that *so* should be a word ), at the extreme...that's a plain fact based on not only statistical data but biological (or mechanical, depending on your point of view) understanding. Um...African...less so bio-mechanically but still so statistically. Piano-wise it would make sense to at least start out wondering whether there would be some difference; both are physical activities after all. A study (I forget which one, sue me ) showed that males with typically low testosterone and females with typically high testosterone seem to be the most talented composers...also, um, male performers exhibited higher levels of testosterone than the average; for whatever reason (as we can't yet determine which causes {it's very likely causal but I'm open to the suggestion that hundreds sampled just happened to dodge the normal curve} the other), um, this would suggest female performers (who on the whole, for obvious reasons {don't make me go on about the whole progesterone malarky) would not match testosterone levels of a male with a similar background and as such would perform *differently* (not necessarily worse, as testosterone could always be a negative impact towards the quality performance, mind)...um...also, painters of both sexes show little to no (statistically insignificant differences) difference to the statistical norm...so...long story short, I think it *will* make a difference, but I couldn't say this with any degree of certainty. Sometimes I *could* tell though, when I'd hear piano through the walls way back in school...um...I'll put that down to luck though. We are made of these hormones; they shape how we think, how we feel, even how we perceive the world (for instance, oestragen will increase olfactory processing by a noticeable degree {this is the reason boys are so smelly :P [a flippant remark, please don't jump down my throat...fingers...meh ]})...to outright say that how we think, feel and perceive the world will make no difference to how a pianist performs is to state, outright, that there is *no* personality in performance...I'm not on board Here endeth the lecture XxxEdit: Or not Um...bringing it back to gays vs miserables (hohoho...no? *sigh* ); as we don't know what makes homosexuality happen we *can't* know for sure whether there'd be a difference in the comparison...even if the reason is ephemeral (I totally believe in souls, despite having learnt about Science with a capital S...igh )...that ephemerality would be where our personality comes from too and, then, we're back to all that litany I just spewed

Edited by FSO (02/09/1307:35 AM)Edit Reason: Loads of typos... :(

_________________________
Sometimes, we all just need to be shown a little kindness <3

This thread gave me the idea of looking at the list of pianists in the "Great Pianists of the 20th Century", the collection of 100 2-CD volumes on Philips. You know, just to get an idea of the statistics.

The first thing that crossed my mind, upon looking at the list, is that I just don't know that much about the sexuality of many of them. The second thought was that, knowing that many gay or lesbian pianists may have hidden the reality of their sexuality from the world (just like people in other fields), the surface indicators of marriage and children don't really count.

So, in the end, it didn't really tell me much, except that reliable data going back very far is probably not easily available.

there's a different between sensitivity and musical raw talent.nowhere in the original question was said "is being gay a sign you are more musically talented?"

The capacity for sensitivity IS encompassed in one's talent.

Musical talent doesn't just mean being able to play a piece the fastest. It's the whole shebang, sensitivity included.

talent encompasses several things beyond sensitivity, hence both words are not interchangeable.

Sherlock strikes again. The example he gave showed a trait which leads to success and success in that case was running fast. Once again, your point is irrelevant as nobody mentioned speed and the physical ability of one to play the piano was directly affected by homosexuality.

I'm really tempted to have a philosophical discussion right now, but I won't.

That pretty much summarizes the gist of your contribution to the thread so far.

Collecting one's marbles and threatening to go home is not the same thing as participating constructively on the thread.

Go on, give into temptation!

Well actually, I've been participating.

Saying in essence that the only thing that makes a good musician is being musical or that that which makes one musically sensitive is being a good musician or that those who are musically talented are musically talented because of their musical talent is to speak in tautologies.

To state categorically that the OP's question is irrelevant because you KNOW that sexual orientation has and cannot have any impact on the coincidence that there are any number of master pianists who have been revealed to have been gay is either to make a claim to secret knowledge or to state an unfounded opinion as fact and in its impact is but a variation on a theme stated by Silverwood et al.

Originally Posted By: JoelW

Originally Posted By: GeorgeB

talent encompasses several things beyond sensitivity

Exactly. That's what I meant by "the whole shebang".

I can't imagine a better example of " the whole shebang " than one's entire personal identity, which for homosexuals is intimately tied up with the developmental issues which were discussed up thread.

I just don't think that liking men inherently makes you a better musician. The notion that "gays are more sensitive because of their hormone makeup, allowing for more sensitive musicality" just isn't convincing to me. By this logic, the majority of women are better musicians.

I just don't think that liking men inherently makes you a better musician. By this logic, the majority of women are better musicians.

This thread is not about " liking men ".This thread is about holding an open discussion about the apparent preponderance of gay master pianists and trying to understand and develop insight into what factors may be in play here.

Rather than just typing rapid-fire, random, off-topic opinions, why not take the time to go back and carefully read the thread, think and reflect about what you have read, separate it from your pre-formed bias and dogmatic formulations and then re-join the discussion?

I just don't think that liking men inherently makes you a better musician. By this logic, the majority of women are better musicians.

This thread is not about " liking men ".This thread is about holding an open discussion about the apparent preponderance of gay master pianists and trying to understand and develop insight into what factors may be in play here.

This is more what I had in mind when I was thinking about creating this thread.

And again, my point was that yours (about link homosexuality to speed/physical ability) was irrelevant to the overall topic. Not really sure how quoting your point makes mine meaningless.

I just went over this. It was an admittedly bad example.

This 'who said what where' game is getting tiresome. If you're actually interested in communicating our opinions to each-other, and you feel that I do not understand your point, please organize your opinions into a single paragraph and I will respond accordingly.

I am interested in reading peoples opinions. But when the other person who is attempting to argue, cuts out bits which are essential to the point being made or makes random points with no plausible explanation to back them up, one will get nowhere trying to discuss

Was it Horowitz or Rubinstein or someone who once joked that all pianists are either Jewish, gay or bad?

At any rate, I will take a stab. I think that the best music, what we admire in virtuoso pianists, has a spiritual quality to it. It gives you a feeling that you have access to that artist's inner world, which contains this rich spectrum of feeling that includes joy and melancholy and grief and playfulness, and these feelings are realized moment to moment and note-by-note in the music. I think in order for a person to be able to express the full range of human feeling in music, he must have had some experiences in his life to get him in touch with what it is to really reckon with pain and look suffering in the eye. In buddhist thought, it's necessary to have an honest experience of pain in order to have an honest experience of happiness.

You could say of the Jewish people that they have an almost ancestral sense of suffering. Reminders of the pain of life are built into ceremonies and celebrations, such as stepping on the glass cup during the wedding ceremony. I think it would be impossible for a gay man to have gone through his life in the 20th century without a substantial measure of pain due to the lack of acceptance and understanding he would have received. Being gay in Gilels or Horowitz's time can only have been incredibly isolating, and no wonder that they would have created these beautiful, perfect musical worlds as a refuge from that.